[MD] Hot stoves and those who sit on them

[Ham Priday]

Joe and Andre --


On 3/25/10 at 3:46 PM, Joseph Maurer asked, rhetorically:

> 2+2=4!  What is individual about that? Intellect can manipulate SQ.
> DQ is a undefined metaphysical principle and participates in the
> individuality in existence.  Otherwise how would we know anything?

That 2+2=4 is an intellectual precept of human knowledge.  Intellection is a 
function of the cognizant individual.  Therefore the Knower of knowledge is 
an individual agent.


On 3/25/10 at 9:33 AM, Andre, in reply to Ham's question "why is the 
individual subject slighted in the MoQ?" wrote:

> Because the individual, when objectively analyzed, requires context for
> definition of itself and proper self-understanding.  Without realization 
> of
> context, individuation disappears.  Thus the individual cannot be taken as
> fundamental all by itself, without causing all kinds of metaphysical
> problems.

Who says the individual must be "objectively analyzed"?  Certainly not an 
MoQist.
The context of individual subjects and objects is that of difference and 
relation.
The nature of subjective awareness is proprietary sensibility.  Sensibility 
is not an inherent property of relational existence, so it can't be 
"objectively analyzed".  Since sensibility is both self-evident and 
fundamental to awareness, it can only be "analyzed" metaphysically, whatever 
"problem" this may cause the MoQist.

I also object to your caveat to Joe:

> Ham plays on the importance of the individual (using his 'essence'
> as Platt uses the MoQ) to justify the exploitation of this concept of
> individuality for political/economic purposes.
>
> It simply is to justify the static social patterns of value they firmly 
> believe in.

That simply isn/t true.  To claim that I spent half my life developing a 
philosophy for political/economic purposes is absurd.  (Hell, I wouldn't 
know what a "static social pattern of value" was if I sat on it!)

--Ham